COPYRIGHT 

of 

PRINTS and LABELS 

By 
WILLIAM M. SYMONS 

Assistant Examiner U. S. Patent Office 




Published by the 

TRADE MARK TITLE CO. 
Fort Wayne^ Indiana 



u 



u 



COPYRIGHT 

of 

PRINTS and LABELS 

By 

WILLIAM M. SYMONS 

Assistant Examiner U. s. Patent Office 




Published by the 

i TRADE MARK TITLE CO. 

Fort Wayne, Indiana 






COPYRIGHT BY -THE 

TRADE MARK TITLE CO, 

19 11 



©CI,A289719 



Copyright of Prints and Labels by William L. 

Symons, Assistant Examiner* U. S. 

Patent Office 



Registration of a claim to copyright on 
prints and labels "designed to be used for 
articles of manufacture" is obtained by 
making proper application to the Commis- 
sioner of Patents. This jurisdiction is con- 
ferred by Section 30 of the Act of June 18, 
1874, which is as follows: 

"That in the construction of this act 
the words 'engraving, cut, and print' 
shall be applied only to pictorial illus- 
trations or works connected with the 
fine arts, and no prints or labels de- 
signed to be used for any other articles 
of manufacture shall be entered under 
the copyright law, but may be reg- 
istered in the Patent Office. And the 
Commissioner of Patents is hereby 
charged with the supervision and con- 
trol of the entry or registry of such 
prints or labels in conformity with the 
regulations provided by law as to copy- 
right of prints, except that there shall be 
paid for recording the title of any print 
or label, not a trade-mark, six dollars, 
which shall cover the expense of fur- 
nishing a copy of the record, under the 
seal of the Commissioner of Patents, 
to the party entering the same." 

The Attorney- General of the United 
States has held that this provision of the 
Act of 1874 was not repealed by the Copy- 
right Act of March 4, 1909, which went into 
effect July 1, 1909 (151 O. G., 743), and 
consequently registration must be in con- 
formity with the provisions of this section 
of the Copyright Act of June 18, 1874, and 
the present Copyright Act. 

THREE 



The intention of Congress, as shown by 
Section 3 of the Act of June 18, 1874, ap- 
pears to have been to have registered in 
the Patent Office all copyrightable matter 
which pertains to or is an adjunct of 
trade, and to enter in the Copyright Office 
of the Library of Congress those intel- 
lectual and artistic creations which are 
valuable in themselves (Ex parte Heinz 
Company. 62 O. G., 1064). 



What May Be Registered, and Who May 
Register 

What constitutes a "print" is defined by 
Section 28 of the Rules for the Registra- 
tion of Prints and Labels in the United 
States Patent Office, as follows: 



*'The word 'print,' as used in Section 
3 of the copyright act, so far as it 
relates to registration in the Patent 
Office, is defined as an artistic and in- 
tellectual production designed to be 
used for an article of manufacture and 
in some fashion pertaining thereto, but 
not borne by it; such, for instance, as 
an advertisement thereof." 

A "label" is defined by the same authority 
as: 



"The word 'label,' as used in this act, 
so far as it relates to registration in 
the Patent Office, is defined as an ar- 
tistic and intellectual production im- 
pressed or stamped directly upon the 
article of manufacture or upon a slip 
or piece of paper or other material to 
be attached in any manner to manu- 
factured articles or to bottles, boxes, 
and packages containing them to in- 
dicate the article of manufacture." 



These definitions are based upon various 
decisions of the Courts and Commissioners 

FOUR 



of Patents. It will be noted that the dis- 
tinction between a label and a print rests 
entirely on, the different uses made of them; 
a label is used upon the goods; a print is 
not attached to or borne by the article 
which it is used to advertise. (The dis- 
tinction between a print and a label is dis- 
cussed fully in Ex parte Heinz Company, 
62 O. G., 1064). 

It is first to be noted that the print or 
label must be an "artistic or intellectual 
production." This rule is based upon many 
decisions of the Courts and the Commis- 
sioners of Patents, the most important of 
which is the decision of the Supreme Court 
of the United States in the case of Higgins 
et al., vs. Keuffel et al., 55 O. G., 1139. In 
this case it was held that copyright pro- 
tection is given under laws authorized by 
Section eight of Article one of the Consti- 
tution which declared that: 



"The Congress shall have power to 
promote the progress of science and 
useful arts, by securing for limited 
times to authors and inventors the 
exclusive right to their respective writ- 
ings and discoveries." 

And a "writing" which can be protected 
under the copyright laws was interpreted 
in the Trade-Mark Cases (100 U. S., 82) as 
follows: 

"And while the word 'writings* may 
be liberally construed as it has been, 
to include original designs for engrav- 
ings, prints, etc., it is only such as are 
original, and are founded on the 
creative powers of the mind. The writ- 
ings which are to be protected are 
the fruits of intellectual labor, em- 
bodied in the form of books, prints, 
engravings and the like." 



It is, therefore, clear that a label or print 

FTVE 



to be registrable must be more than a printed 
description of the goods to which it refers, 
and the use of descriptive words or of words 
in praise of the qualities of an article does 
not make the label registrable. It must have 
some value other than as a mere advertise- 
ment. 

The use of a paraph under certain words 
of a label which is otherwise devoid of artistic 
merit is not sufficient to render the label reg- 
istrable (Ex parte The Samuel Winslow 
Skate Manufacturing Company, 131 O G., 
692). Ordinary printers' ornamentations 
placed on a label which consists otherwise 
merely of printed descriptive words does not 
produce an artistic label which may be reg- 
istered. In another case (Ex parte J. W. 
Howe & Son, 123 O. G., 1283) the Commis- 
sioner of Patents ruled that prints and 
labels are registered in the Patent Office in 
conformity with the law of copyrights on 
the ground of their artistic value or that 
they are useful as a product of intellectual 
labor. It was here pointed out that no nice 
application of rules will be made to 
determine the degree of artistic or intel- 
lectual merit which should be required in 
order to warrant registration, but that 
prints or labels would be registered as a 
matter of course when of a character which 
was commonly regarded as a result of 
artistic or intellectual effort. The Patent 
Office has consistently held that it has the 
right to determine what is an artistic or 
intellectual production. It has, however, 
ruled that a print or label need not be 
artistic in a strict sense of the word; that 
if it involves something more than the skill 
of an experienced typesetter in putting into 
attractive form the descriptive matter fur- 
nished him, it should be granted registra- 

six 



tlon (Ex Parte The New England Gas & 
Coke Company, 90 O. G., 1365). In that case 
it was pointed out that it must always be 
kept in mJnd that while the courts may hold 
a print or label which has been registered 
is not entitled to protection under the copy- 
right laws, no copyright protection can be 
given it unless it has been registered in ac- 
cordance with law. Some other decisions in 
which are discussed the question of what 
artistic or intellectual merit is required, are: 

Ex parte Miller, 96 O. G., 1855. 

Ex parte Baldwin, 98 O. G., 1706. 

A label is not artistic merely because it 
contains a new arbitrary word which is an 
inteaiectual production. (Ex parte Houghton, 
99 O. G., 1623). There are many recent cases 
holding that prints and labels consisting of 
ordinary printed matter with printers* border 
and ornamentation are not registrable. (Ex 
parte Eupeptol Medicine Company, 103 O. 
G., 1417; Ex parte Abraham, 107 O. G., 1971; 
Ex parte Ambrosia Chocolate Company, 122 
O. G., 3011; and Ex parte Sides, 123 O. G., 
1663). A label is not registrable if its only 
artistic feature is a trade-mark which has 
been registered (Ex parte Wm. T. Reynolds 
& Company, 108 O. G., 559). The reason for 
this ruling is to be found in the fact that 
the trade-mark which has been registered 
has been published, and under the former 
copyright law if a label had been published 
before application for registration had been 
made the right to registration has been for- 
feited. And, further, the Act of June 18, 1874, 
expressly states that a trade-mark may not 
be registered as a label, and if the only 
part of the label which makes it an artistic 
production is the registered trade-mark, the 
necessity of refusing registration is appar- 
ent. 

SEVEN 



An author or proprietor, or his executors, 
administrators or assigns, who is a citizen 
of the United States may register his claim 
to copyright. So also may an alien author 
or proprietor who is domiciled within the 
United States at the time of the first publi- 
cation of the print or label. A citizen or 
subject or any foreign nation, which grants 
similar privileges to citizens of the United 
States on substantially the same basis as to 
its own citizens may secure registration of 
his copyright in the United States. This is 
all set forth in Section 8 of the Copyright 
Act. If an author could not secure copy- 
right protection for his work, the proprietor 
who derives his title from the author can- 
not. A list of countries with which we have 
reciprocal copyright conditions is published 
as a foot note on page 5 of the Rules and 
Regulations for the Registration of Claims to 
Copyright by the Copyright Office, Bulletin 
No. 15. It should be noted that the rules 
require not only that an author shall state 
his citizenship, but that a proprietor shall 
state the nationality of the author from 
whom he derived title. 



Form of Application and Copies Required 

The Patent Office does not furnish blank 
forms for making application for registra- 
tion of prints and labels, although the Copy- 
right Office does furnish blanks to make ap- 
plication to that office. The rules, copies of 
which will be furnished on application, show 
an approved form of application for an in- 
dividual firm, corporation and association. 
By following the forms preiBcribed, formal 
objection will be avoided and no delay will 

EIGHT 



probably result in securing the certificate 
of registration, but the office will not insist 
on any particular form being followed. (Ex- 
parte McLoughlin Bros., 86 O. G., 1633). It 
is only necessary that the applicant make 
those allegations prescribed by the statute 
and particularly required by the rules. 

The rules require that ten copies of the 
print or label must be filed with the formal 
application. This number is rather large, 
but as it is the duty of the office to furnish 
certified copies of the record upon applica- 
tion, there ought to be a reasonable num- 
ber to draw from. The copies presented 
must be complete; fragmentary or mutilated 
copies will not be accepted. 



Publication 

Section 9 of the Copyright Act of March 
4, 1909, provides: 

"That any person entitled thereto by 
this Act may secure copyright for his 
work by publication thereof with the 
notice of copyright required by this 
Act; and such notice shall be affixed 
to each copy thereof published or offered 
for sale in the United States by au- 
thority of the copyright proprietor, 
except in the case of books seeking ad 
Interim protection." 

The Patent Office rules require, in cor- 
formity with this provision, that an appli- 
cant shall state the date when the print or 
label was first published with notice of copy- 
right thereon. After a print or label has 
been published with the proper notice 
thereon, registration may b© obtained by 
making application in accordance with the 
forms or by stating substantially what is 
contained therein. 

NINB 



Section 10 of the Copyright Act provides: 

"That such person may obtain reg- 
istration of his claim to copyright by 
complying with the provisions of this 
act, including the deposit of copies, 
upon which such compliance, the reg- 
ister of copyrights shall issue to him 
the certificate provided in Section fifty- 
five of this Act.'* 

It is apparently the duty of the Commis- 
sioner of Patents to issue a certificate after 
copies have been furnished and the other 
provisions of the act and the rules have 
been complied with as to such copyrightable 
matter as is placed under his supervision 
and control by the 3d section of the Act of 
June 8, 1874. 

For applicants for copyright to understand 
that the copyrightable matter must first be 
published with the required notice thereon is 
difficult, in view of the practice under all 
former copyright acts to apply for registra- 
tion of the copyright before publication. The 
former laws requiring application for copy- 
right to be made before publication have 
been strictly enforced when invoked in in- 
fringement suits, and as suit cannot now be 
brought until a certificate of registration has 
been secured, which certificate cannot be 
obtained until the copyright matter has been 
published, there ought to be no difficulty in 
this regard. 

The date) of publication should be given 
exactly; that is, by year, month and day. 
This is necessary because by Section 23 the 
copyright endures 28 years from the date 
of first publication and the application for 
renewal must be made within one year from 
the date of the expiration of the original 
copyright. The rules prescribed by the 
Copyright Office state that the actual date 
by year, month and day must be given. The 

TEN 



rules of the) Patent Office merely require 
that the date must be given, but it is the 
practice of that office to require the date to 
be given exactly. As the courts uniformly 
held that the provisions of the former copy- 
right laws must have been strictly complied 
with, they will probably hold the same as 
to the provisions of this law. (Marsh et al. 
vs. Warren & Fairweather, 13 O. G., 7; 14 
O. G., 678; Higgins vs. KeufCel, 55 O. G., 
1139). It was held by thel Commissioner of 
Patents under the former Copyright Act that 
if a label had been published without being 
registered it was not rendered registrable by 
adding to it an inconspicuous word which 
involved nothing more than the ordinary 
skill of a typesetter (Ex parte Wickert, 90 
O. G., 1157). It would now probably be held 
in analogy to the decisions referred to that 
if a labeJ had been published without notice 
of copyright it could not be slightly changed 
and then be registrable after proper publica- 
tion. 

Some light is thrown on what consti- 
tutes publication by Section 62 of the Copy- 
right Act. 



Notice of Copyright 



The notice of copyright prescribed by Sec- 
tion 18 of the Copyright Act must appear 
on each copy published; this is required by 
Section 9 of the Act. The form is "Copy- 
right (or copr.) 1911 by Richard Roe." The 
statute prescribes that certain works pre- 
scribed in sub-sections (f) to (k), inclusive, 
of Section five, may bear a notice consisting 
of the letter C within a circle, thus: (C), 
accompanied by the initials, monogram, 

ELEVEN 



mark or symbol of the copyrig-ht proprietor, 
but in ease this form of notice is used the 
name of the proprietor must appear on 
some accessible portion of the copies. In 
view of the element of doubt whether a 
print or label belongs to any of the kind 
of works referred to in the sub- sections (f) 
to (k), inclusive, it would appear to be 
better always to use the ordinary form of 
notice given above. The publication of any 
copies without the prescribed notice would 
appear to be a dedication of the right to 
the public, unless the failure was due to an 
accident or mistake. If the notice was 
omitted unintentionally or accidentally, the 
validity of the copyrig-ht is preserved by the 
express provision of Section 20, but no 
damages may be recovered against an inno- 
cent infringer who has been misled by the 
omission of the notice. 

The usual form of copyright notice should, 
therefore, be given. 

There are certain notices which applicants 
sometimes use upon their prints or labels 
which should not be used. It has been held 
that a label containing the words "Label 
Registered," would not be registered (Ex 
parte Tennessee Brewing Company, 136 O. 
G., 1999). The Commissioner said that this 
form of notice was unauthorized; that it was 
not a valid noticel, and would have the effect 
of niisleading. 

The old form of the guarantee legend 
under the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 
1906, namely, ''Guaranteed under the Food 
and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906, Serial No. 

" should not be used. In the Tennessee 

case above cited, the Commissioner refused 
to register a label containing this form of 
legend on the ground that, as it did not 
show by whom the guarantee was made, it 

TWELVE 



might mislead purchasers into the belief that 
the guarantee was made by the government. 
The new form of legend prescribed by Food 
Inspection Decision No. 99 of the Department 
of Agriculture should now be used. No vari- 
ation of this form should be attempted. The 
form is "Guaranteed by (name of guarantor) 
under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906, 
Serial No. ." The ruling on the Ten- 
nessee case was followed in the cases of 
Ex parte Lake Chemical Company, 141 O. G., 
567, and Ex parte Ruppert, 140 O. G., 755. 



Tltl< 



Some title must appear on the copiefc of the 
print or label filed and this title must be 
given in the application. The applicant gen- 
erally has the privilege of selecting the word 
or words he desires to designate as the 
title of his print or label, but unless some 
title appears on the copies and is claimed 
in the application registration will be refused. 
Rules 18 and 19 are clear on this point. In 
the case of Ex parte Ruppert, 121 O. G., 2327 
these rules were upheld. It was, however, 
pointed out that substitute copies of the print 
might be filed with a proper title printed 
thereon. It would appear to be unnecessary 
and unwise to claim as a title all the words 
of description appearing on a label; only 
some prominent word or words should be 
given in the application. 



THIRTEEN 



Articles of Manufacture 

"Must Be Descriptive Thereof." 

The print or label must relate to an 
article of manufacture. This is plainly 
stated in the Act of June 18, 1874, and recog- 
nized in the rules. Congress undoubtedly had 
in mind the' fact that if the artistic or in- 
tellectual creation for which copyright pro- 
tection was sought did not pertain to an 
article of manufacture it should be deposited 
in the Copyright Office of the Librarian of 
Congress. 

There has been no strict interpretation of 
the word "manufacture" as used in the act. 
Prints and labels relating to natural waters, 
ice, hay, etc., have been registered without 
objection, although these articleis have been 
held by various tribunals in some instances 
not to be articles of manufacture. 

Registration has, however, been refused of 
a print used to advertise a life insurance 
policy (Ex parte Bowles, 97 O. G., 2308). 

So also was a design or ornamentation 
produced by a plate and applied to cards, 
letter heads, etc., refused on the ground that 
it did not relate to the trade or pertain to 
an article of manufacture (Ex parte Barn- 
hart Bros. & Spindler, 87 O. G., 2118). It 
must be remembered that an article of man- 
ufacture is itself not a print or label. A 
print or label must be distinct from the 
article. The article of manufacture may be 
protected, if at all, under the patent laws or 
under the copyright law as an artistic crea- 
tion not pertaining to some article of manu- 
facture. Ex parte Schumachter & Ettlinger, 
22 O. G., 1291. 

A print or label must be descriptive of 
some article of manufacture. It is not neces- 

rOURTEEN 



sary that the article be described by words, 
although this is the ordinary way of de- 
scribing- an article; a picture of the article 
is a sufficient description. (Ex parte Mahn, 
82, O. G., 1210.) A label containing the picture 
of a hammock was held registrable for ham- 
mocks (Ex parte Palmer, 58 O. G., 383). A 
print for malt liquors which contained promi- 
nently displayed the picture of a beer keg 
was held to describe properly the article 
which it was used to advertise. (Ex parte 
Ruppert, 121 O. G., 2327). The description of 
the goods must, however, be certain. It Is 
not enough that the name of the applicant 
suggest the goods upon which the label is 
used (Ex parte American Wire Weavers' 
Protective Association, 94 O. G., 586). In 
this case the goods upon which the label was 
alleged to be used were wire cloth and the 
applicant for registration contended that its 
name sufficiently indicated the goods. This, 
however, was denied, the Commissioner 
holding that the label must indicate with 
certainty the goods. It was stated that 
the primary object of a label is to describe 
the goods to which it is attached. 

There appears to be no exception to the 
rule that the print or label must in some 
way identify the goods and that these goods 
must be stated in the application. Ex parte 
The Lion Fig & Date Company, 102 O. G., 
823; Ex parte Royal Medicine Company, 
100 O. G., 2775; Ex parte Regina Music Box 
Company. 100 O. G., 1112, and Ex parte Ball, 
98 O. G., 2366. 



FIFTEEN 



Red Cross, Portraits, Names of Individuals, 
Public Insignia and Deceptive Matter 

The Act of January 5, 1905, incorporating 
the American National Red Cross prohibits 
the use of the sign of the Red Cross or any 
insignia colored in imitation thereof by any 
one not then entitled to the use thereof for 
the purpose of trade or as an advertise- 
ment to induce the sale of any article. Under 
the provisions of this Act the Commissioner 
refuses to register a label containing the 
words "Red Cross" or the insignia of the 
Red Cross Society. The question whether 
an applicant for registration of a print or 
label who was entitled to the use of the 
sign of the Red Cross at the date of the 
passage of the Act of January 5, 1905, may 
register a label containing the Red Cross, 
has^ not bee>n considered in any decision 
found. 

Portraits of living individuals and thei 
names thereof appearing on the copies filed 
will render the print or label not registrable 
unless the consent of the individual to the 
use and registration of his name and por- 
trait be given. The consent should be filed 
with the case. In the case of Ex parte John 
Dewar & Sons, Ltd., (98 O. G., 1037), it was 
held that the words *'King Edward VII" 
were not registrable, as the individual bear- 
ing this title' was living at the time applica- 
tion for registration was made. On the 
grounds of public policy it was pointed out 
that the Government should not sanction 
the use of a person's name for the purpose 
of trade without his consent. To the same 

SIXTEEN 



effect, was the ruling in the cases of Ex 
parte Mclnnerney, 85 O. G., 148, in which 
registration of the trade-mark consisting of 
the name "Dewey" was refused. "Bwano 
Tumbo" was held not registrable in the case 
of Ex parte Pearse & Todd, 95 MS. D.„ 325, 
on the ground that this was a name given 
by the people of a certain locality to a liv- 
ing individual who is a former President 
of the United States. Even the name or 
picture of a deceased President of the 
United States is not now registrable. In the 
case of Ex parta Banner Cigar Manufactur- 
ing Company, (138 O. G., 528), it was de- 
cided that the picture and fac-simile signa- 
ture of Grover Cleveland were not registrable 
as a trade-mark on the ground that it de- 
tracted from the dignity of the high office 
which he had held to encourage the use of 
his name in trade allowing it to be reg- 
istered as a trade-mark. The decision in the 
case of Ex parte R. I. Sherman Manufactur- 
ing Company, 101 O. G., 3105 is to the same 
effect. 

It may here be noted that decisions in 
trade- mark cases are referred to and relied 
on in considering print and label applica- 
tions as far as applicable. This was so held 
in the cases of Ex parte John Dewar & Sons, 
Ltd., 98 O. G., 1037, and Ex parte Rippen, 
108 O. G.. 798. 

The registration of a print or label con- 
taining the flag of this or any other country 
or other public insignia is not permitted 
This was not permitted even prior to the 
passage of thp present trade- mark law 
specifically prohibiting the registration of a 
trade-mark containing public insignia (Ex 
parte Ball, 98 O. G., 2366; and Ex parte The 
Brandsville Fruit Farm Company, 103 O. G., 
660). The refusal to register public insignia 

SEVENTEEN 



under the present Trade-Mark Act has been 
repeatedly upheld. (In re Cahn, Belt & Com- 
pany, 122 O. G., 354; in re William Con- 
ners Paint Manufacturing Company, 123 O. 
G., 999; in re American Glue Company 123 
O. G., 999). 

The letters "U. S." on a conventional shield 
have been held public insignia and not reg- 
istrable on the ground that they would tend 
to induce the public to believe the goods 
bearing this mark were made by or had the 
official approval of the United States Gov- 
ernmeait. 

In the case of Ex parte Arguto Oilless 
Bearing Company, 157 O. G., 999, registra- 
tion of a print containing a representation 
of the seal of Philadelphia was permitted 
where it appeared that the seal was part of 
a medal awarded by the city of Philadelphia 
to the applicant. 

There must be no false, misleading or de- 
ceptive statement on a print or label which 
is presented for registration. The use of the 
word "cure" in connection with any pro- 
prietary medicine will usually be objected 
to in view of the decision on the case of Ex 
parte Barclay & Barclay (135 O. G., 217). 
Statements which are contrary to the rulings 
contained in the Food Inspection Decision 
of the Department of Agriculture and the 
Notices of Judgment published by that De- 
partment will not be permitted. 



Fees 

The government fee for the registration of 
a print or label payable on filing the^ applica- 
tion is six dollars, which is returned to the 
applicant on request if registration is refused 

EIGHTEEN 



Appeals 



Upon refusal of the Examiner of Trade- 
Marks to register a print or label, an appeal 
may be entered which will be heard by the 
Commissioner of Patents without the pay- 
memt of any fee. The decision of the Com- 
missioner, however, on the question whether 
that which is presented for registration is 
subject-matter for registration as a print or 
label or as a trade-mark appears to be final. 
A petition for a writ of mandamus to compel 
the^ Commissioner to register as a label 
what he decided was a trade-mark was dis- 
missed. United States ex rel., Elhanan L. 
Moodie vs. Butterworth (30 O. G., 97). 

And in the case of Allen vs United States 
ex rel. The Regina Music Box Company 
(105 O. G., 747), the Court of Appeals of 
the District of Columbia reversed the judg- 
ment of the Supreme Court of the Di&trict 
of Columbia ordering a mandamus to issue 
commanding the registration of a label by 
the Commissioner of Patents. In this case 
the Commissioner had refused to register the 
alleged label on the ground that it was not 
descriptive) of the article on which it was 
intended to be used. His decision upon this 
question which he was required by statute to 
decide was not subject to review by man- 
damus or injunction. 

The law appears to vest the question of 
determining the registrability of a print or 
label finally in the Commissioner of Patents. 



NINETEEN 



Advantages of Registration 

That there are many advantages secured 
by the copyright of prints and labels has 
been only fairly weil recognized. Since the 
passage of the Act of June 18, 1874, about 
2,500 prints and 15,000 labels have been en- 
tered in the Patent Office. If it were gen- 
erally known that the application fee is re- 
turned by the government on request when 
registration is refused, many moret applica- 
tions would probably be filed. There are 
other advantages arising from registration 
than those directly given by the statutes. 
Applicants on being advised that their prints 
or labels are not artistic, or are not reg- 
istrable for other reasons, often discard those 
objected to and adopt new ones which are 
clearly intellectual or artistic productions 
and which may be easily protected from 
infringement. It is no trivial thing to 
encourage the use in trade of prints and 
labels which are intellectual or artistic 
productions of a character capable of pro- 
tection under the laws passed for the pur- 
pose of promoting the progress of the "use- 
ful arts," and the work of the artist and the 
expert lithographer when, used in commerce 
should be given the fullest recognition by 
Legislatures and Courts. It is only neces- 
sary to rejad some of the leading decisions 
of the Supreme Court of the United States 
to be convinced of the friendly attitude of 
that tribunal toward all who have invoked 
the benefits of the copyright laws. 

Suits to prevent the infringement of copy- 
right are cognizable in the Circuit Courts of 
the United States without regard to the 
citizenship of the parties. In addition to an 

TWBNFY 



injunction, the successful complainant may 
secure not only damages which he may have 
suffered, but the profits which the infringer 
shall have made. The statute provides that 
the complainant shall be required to prove 
sales only and that the defendant shall prove 
every element of the cost which he claims. 
The Court may require the destruction of 
all copies held to be infringements and all 
melans for making such copies. For willful 
infringement for profit any person upon con- 
viction may be punished by imprisonment 
as well as fine. 




TWENTY-ONE 



TRADE MARK TITLE CO. 

General Offices: 

Fort Wayne, Indiana 



Washington, D. C. 

Washington Loan & Trust Bldg. 
Ninth and F. St., N. W. 



New York City 

1117 Bowling Green Building 
11 Broadway 



Board of Attorneys 
900 Cities of United States 



Legal Representatives 
99 Foreign Governments 



TWENTY-TWO 



THE 

TRADE-MARK 

TITLE CO. 

FORT WAYNE, 
INDIANA- 

DESIGNS TRADE-MARKS 

Which possess salesmanship — the power 

to induce purchasers to try the goods. 

Such a mark, like good advertising, is the 
basis of Business Success. 

REGISTERS TRADE-MARKS 



In the United States Patent Office, in the 
Departments of the various States, and 
through its representatives, in each of the 
ninety-nine Foreign Governments. 

PROTECTS TRADE-MARKS 

By notifying patrons immediately upon 
the appearance in the markets of infring- 
ing and substitution goods, collecting evi- 
dence of infringements, and by prosecu- 
tion of infringers. 

TWENTY-THREE 



Jim u 19" 




TWENTY-FOUR 



1 1 1 ll ll I'l'l 



One copy del. to Cat. Div. 



11)1 14 ^»^l 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




019 918 042 3 
TRADEMARKS* 



When a manufacturer by skill, care 
and fidelity manufactures a good arttcle, 
it becomes of the utmost importance to 
him that its origin and ownership should 
be known. 

The new law points the manufacturer 
to the advisability of adopting and regis- 
tering a Trade-Mark whereby he can se- 
cure to himself these benefits. 

The adoption and use of such marks 
identifies his goods in the markets of the 
world, thereby creating a "Good Will" 
which becomes his most valued asset. 

Sound policy, which dictates the pro- 
tection of the public from imposition and 
substitution, the security of the fruits of 
labor to the laborer, the encouragement of 
skillful industry, and above everything 
the inculcation of truth and honor in the 
conduct of trade and commerce, demands 
that such a "Good Will" so gained, be 
accorded the safest and best redress 
against fraud and substitution known to 
the Courts. 



